Draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2009


[back to previous text]

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question about Home Office research, but, as I am not a Home Office Minister, I shall have to come back to him on that.
Mr. Willis: The Home Office provides the evidence to you.
Maria Eagle: I hope that the Home Office is listening, and that it will do so. I shall try to come back to the hon. Gentleman, if not during the debate, then afterwards.
The reason why I am convinced of the measure is that, in the past, there has been no escalation from the warning, which is an administrative process, to a prosecution. An escalation—a step up—sends a clear signal that, the first time, one might get off with a warning, the second time, there is effectively a fine, but the third time, if one is caught again, one can expect to be reported to the courts, with all its potential consequences. That is a clear signal to the individual, but remember, we are talking about an individual who is caught in possession for personal use, not about more serious offences.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked a specific question, namely, what if possession was one item on a list of other potential crimes that the officer perceived when he found the individual? It would very much be for the officer to decide whether the other offences that he perceived, and that the individual might have committed, were worth arresting the individual for; certainly, however, other law-breaking that was related to the possession would represent an aggravated feature, and one would not necessarily expect the officer to deem a PND appropriate in those circumstances. It would be a matter for the professional judgment of the police officer in the circumstances in which they found themselves, but one would not expect a series of offences that related to, and included, possession to be dealt with by issuing a PND for one offence.
Opposition Members have bandied about allegations that politics is being played. [Interruption.] It is an outrageous suggestion. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate suggested that the Government sought to talk tough but were being soft, whereas the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggested that the Government were being too tough. From the Government Benches, where I sit, it is interesting to note the politics being played by both Opposition parties. They have different perspectives on whether cannabis possession or use should even be illegal, but they have alighted upon the same view of the order. Far be it from me to suggest that the Opposition parties are playing politics, but it is interesting that they have both come to the view that the order is bad, but from completely different sides of the spectrum. One thinks that cannabis use should be legalised, and the other thinks that every year—
Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. May I make it absolutely clear that I have not said—the record will show this—that there should be no penalties at all for cannabis, or that it should not be classified?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Maria Eagle: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman said that, Mr. Illsley. I was, perhaps, traducing his party’s position on this issue. None the less, I find it interesting that the Opposition parties come from completely opposite ends of the spectrum, but have come to exactly the same conclusion about the order—one because it thinks it too tough, and the other because it thinks it too soft.
I assure hon. Members that the police have told us, via ACPO, that what we propose will give them an extra weapon in their armoury to deal with individuals who get involved in the possession and use of cannabis. We have shown that we accept that is a serious issue by reclassifying cannabis to class B. The measure will enable us to send a much stronger signal about society’s views on the possession of cannabis. I accept that a penalty notice for disorder is not, by itself, the toughest of penalties, but if one views it as part of an escalating set of consequences to repeat offending, it can be seen as sensible.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there is no evidence or research behind the order. He accepted that the Government are well-intentioned, for which I thank him, and he suggested that the order is a political move to appease the public, which I refute. This is not about suggesting to the public that the Government are tougher than they are; it is about toughening the current regime and sending a clear signal to those who are caught in possession that that is not something they should repeat. The escalation of consequences sends that signal strongly.
I have dealt with the point about whether fines are paid. I have also dealt with the point that several hon. Members made about whether the regime applies to under-18s by making it clear that it does not. I accept that matters are dealt with slightly differently in some devolved Administrations that have competence for criminal justice. It is entirely up to them whether they introduce a similar escalating set of consequences for the possession of cannabis on the street. It remains to be seen what, if anything, they do.
On other drugs, I have made it clear that for a penalty notice for disorder to be used, it must be clear to the officer on the spot what substance the individual is in possession of. That would present difficulties with substances in powder or tablet forms, as there would have to be further investigation to establish what they are. For that reason, the Government have no plans to extend the use of penalty notices for disorder to other types of drug offence. Several Opposition Members have asked about that.
I hope that I have dealt with—[Interruption.] I have obviously missed something.
Mr. Burrowes: The Minister did not inspire much confidence by talking about the first strike in terms of its hit and miss—that is not the kind of strike that I would have much confidence in. Perhaps the operation of the PentiP computer system will provide some assurance. Will the Minister clarify exactly when that will become operational?
Maria Eagle: I am informed that it will be available from 2010 for cannabis warnings and PNDs, so there will be some capacity across the board to ensure that such things are properly recorded. Clearly, any escalation from one step to another requires the capacity to record properly, otherwise it will not work as well as one would hope.
The hon. Member for Kettering asked me about numbers of prosecutions. My understanding is that during 2007, as set out in the impact assessment, there were 80,000 cannabis warnings issued, 4,910 arrests, 2,440 cautions given, 2,560 proceeded against, 780 trials in the magistrates courts, 60,000 trials in the Crown courts, and 2,340 sentenced. That gives some indication of the numbers, which is all that I can provide at present, but if he wants any more information I am happy to get it for him outside the Committee.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points. I understand that the Opposition parties are not happy, for various reasons, about the order, but I hope that I have managed to convince those on my own side at least that they should support the Government in respect of the order.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Eagle, Maria
Gilroy, Linda
Hesford, Stephen
Lucas, Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
Seabeck, Alison
Taylor, Ms Dari
NOES
Burrowes, Mr. David
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Timpson, Mr. Edward
Tredinnick, David
Willis, Mr. Phil
Wright, Jeremy
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2009.
10.8 am
Committee rose.
 
Previous Contents
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 23 January 2009